Devlinhair Prods., Inc. v. Pinder

2026 NY Slip Op 30837(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 652098/2020
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Emily Morales-Minerva

Opinion

Devlinhair Prods., Inc. v Pinder 2026 NY Slip Op 30837(U) March 3, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 652098/2020 Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6520982020.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/16/2026 3:45:42 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652098/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 288 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 42M X DEVLINHAIR PRODUCTIONS, INC. INDEX NO. 652098/2020

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 02/17/2026 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 KATHARYN PINDER,

Defendant. DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE X

HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 249, 250, 251, 252, 253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,26 4,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272, 273,274,275,276,277 were read on this motion to/for PRECLUDE

Trial courts have "wide discretion in making evidentiary

rulings" subject to review for "abuse of discretion" (Mazella v

Beals, 27 NY3d 694, 709 (2016], quoting People v Carroll, 95

NY2d 375, 385 [2000]). Further, a trial court's error in ruling

on an evidentiary matter "shall be disregarded if a substantial

right of a party is not prejudiced" (CPLR § 2002).

"Under general evidentiary principles, all relevant

evidence is admissible unless its admission violates some

exclusionary rule" (People v Frumusa, 29 NY3d 364, 370 (2015]

[citations and quotations omitted]). Relevant in regards to

evidence means the proffered material or testimony "has any

652098/2020 DEVLINHAIR PRODUCTIONS, INC. vs. PINDER, KATHARYN Page 1 of4 Motion No. 005

[* 1] 1 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652098/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 288 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026

tendency in reason to prove the existence of any material fact"

(People v Harris, 26 NY3d 1, 5 [2015] [emphasis added] [citation

and quotations omitted]). For example, "a fact directly at

issue in the case" (People v. Primo, 96 NY2d 351, 355 [2001]).

However, relevant evidence should be excluded where "it is

too slight, remote, or conjectural to outweigh risks [of trial

delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, confusing the

issues or misleading the jury]" (id.).

Here, defendant seeks to exclude from evidence an undated

spreadsheet that plaintiff intends to offer to the Court as

proof of damages in this action for breach of non-compete and

non-solicitation clauses, misappropriation of trade secrets and

breach of loyalty. The spreadsheet has no header or other

marker identifying its source in any way and is in such a small

font-point that it is essentially illegible (see New York State

Courts Electronic Filing System [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 251,

affirmation in support of motion in limine, filed February 17,

2026, exhibit I). Plaintiff purports that non-party Novartis

created said spreadsheet for trial to show its payments to non-

party Whistle Communication LLC, defendant's company.

Focusing on the expiration of the parties' employment

agreement, defendant argues that the payments listed in the

subject spreadsheet are not relevant to damages, as non-party

Novartis made them years after the restrictions on defendant's 652098/2020 DEVLINHAIR PRODUCTIONS, INC. vs. PINDER, KATHARYN Page 2of4 Motion No. 005

[* 2] 2 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652098/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 288 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026

competition expired. As to prejudice, defendant argues that the

spreadsheet would prejudice her by creating an inference that

plaintiff "has suffered damages beyond those it may have

actually incurred during the Restrictive Covenant Period"

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 250, memorandum of law in support of mot. in

limine, at 6).

Plaintiff counters that the payments are relevant, if those

payments were earned during the period when the non-compete and

non-solicitation clauses were in effect, even if paid after the

period expired. In addition, plaintiff also essentially argues

that such payments are relevant for a determination of damages

under plaintiff's causes of action sounding in equity. As to

prejudice, plaintiff highlights that this matter is proceeding

to a bench trial and that no undue prejudice exists.

Upon consideration of the arguments, the pleadings and the

substantive law, the Court exercises its discretion to deny

defendant's request to exclude the subject spreadsheet solely on

relevance and undue prejudice. The Court, among other things,

finds no risk of undue prejudice against defendant. Further,

the arguments defendant raised on record go to the weight, if

any, that the undersigned, as factfinder, should afford the

spreadsheet.

Finally, this ruling leaves open defendant's right to

object to such evidence on other grounds or to make arguments 652098/2020 DEVLINHAIR PRODUCTIONS, INC. vs. PINDER, KATHARYN Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 005

[* 3] 3 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 04:48 PM INDEX NO. 652098/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 288 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026

that go to the weight of such evidence if the spreadsheet is

presented at the bench trial. The Court's denial of exclusion

at this junction does not indicate that the spreadsheet has been

entered as plaintiff's exhibit.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendant's motion (seq. no. 005} is denied.

3/3/2026 DATE ~~ EMJLYRALES.MINERC.

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: _INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

652098/2020 DEVLINHAIR PRODUCTIONS, INC. vs. PINDER, KATHARYN Page4of4 Motion No. 005

[* 4] 4 of 4